The Extra Biblical Evidence for the existence of Jesus

He doesn't have to convince me that evolutionary theory isn't what it is cracked up to be. I am well aware of the fact that if the theory is going to
stick around a new mechanism needs to be found. Now please note. I did not say evolution cannot happen or that it did not happen. I simply said
science needs some new discoveries.

No new mechanism needs to be found for evolution....

The ONLY question that remains is how did life start. From single celled organisms to humans, we know basically the entire play by play.

Abiogenesis is the only unexplained part and that has nothing really to do with evolution because evolution only tries to explain what happened after.

They are called Messianic Jews and you're right there aren't many of them but pretending their aren't Jews who believe Jesus to be the Messiah is
dishonest. In fact, the first time I learned the genre of the four Gospels was from listening to a Messianic Jew defend the historicity of Jesus.

I completely understand how evolution is supposed to work. The problem is the stuff we are finding is genetics is showing random mutation simply isn't
enough to get from cell to man. Certain aspects of the developmental process are canalized meaning they produce the same phenotype irrespective
environment and genotype. The higher up in the developmental hierarchy that you are the more resistant to change the system is.

No new mechanism needs to be found for evolution.... The ONLY question that remains is how did life start. From single celled organisms to humans, we
know basically the entire play by play. Abiogenesis is the only unexplained part and that has nothing really to do with evolution because evolution
only tries to explain what happened after.

Preach it son! Preach it.

Don't take my word for it here.

Neo-Darwinian evolution is uniformitarian in that it assumes that all process works the same way, so that evolution of enzymes or flower colors can be
used as current proxies for study of evolution of the body plan. It erroneously assumes that change in protein coding sequence is the basic cause of
change in developmental program; and it erroneously assumes that evolutionary change in body plan morphology occurs by a continuous process. All of
these assumptions are basically counterfactual.

how many times does the bible demand that people be put to death for breaking the rules? Of
course it's a death cult. The dark ages, the inquisition, the puritans, the witch trials. How many crucifixes are being displayed at the moment?
Christianity is the definition of a death cult.

while I'm no fan of the OP, either, because it lacked substance. There's plenty of proof that Jesus was real and did what he said he did.

no
there is not. There is zero proof that he existed, and he did not say he did anything. He did not write any of the bible. Those stories were written
by others, decades after the events.

He's either a liar, a madman, or the Son of God.

again He did not write any of it. That
is very uneducated of you to keep bringing that up. But.... Out of those three choices, you think the supernatural choice is the most reasonable?
Talking donkeys, world wide floods, faith healing, dead people crawling out of the ground and walking in the streets, water into wine, this is what
sounds reasonable to you?

History wouldn't remember a liar or a madman.

Really? You can't think of one liar or a madman who is recorded in history? Even a
fictional one?

In fact, there's more proof that Jesus is and was exactly who the Bible says that he was.

You should bring this stuff to the world's
attention. Because we should see all of this evidence. Nobody knows about it. Do you mean the bible? Because that is not proof for anything except
that the bible exists.

(not to mention, the Bible has never been incorrect.

so...... You're a biblical literalist? You believe everything in the bible is
real? Everything?

In fact, daily it is proven correct.

even the talking donkey?

You hear about that snake with legs they found near the tigris and euphrates [where they think eden was/is?]?

Yea, i have. What does that have to do with the bible? Do you really think a snake with legs proves something about jesus' existance, or his divinity?
I don't understand what your point is. Do you think it proves the story of adam and eve?

What about the fact that they found Noah's ark--and guess what it's ON TOP OF A MOUNTAIN and measures to the exact cubit as the Bible
describes.

No they didn't. You're blowing my mind that you think this is true.

OR BEST YET--what about the fact that now, science
accepts that there was a GLOBAL FLOOD OF EPIC PROPORTIONS. They once denied that, but the evidence is too plentiful and widespread to deny)-

no
it's not. No geologists say this. You need to get your news from some other place than your grandma, creationist sites and fringe youtube channels.

-and there's more proof of Jesus than there is of you, yourself.

what

So, good luck. You CANNOT disprove the Bible.

i
don't need to. The burden of proof lies with the one making the extraordinary claims.

I think there's plenty of evidence that God is real.

You think there is, but there is not. It's that simple. Thinking there is and
proving there is are very different things.

I just think you've blinded yourself to it by hardening your heart. Are you real? Prove
it.

i am willing to look at all of this proof you claim is all around us. Where is it? You do know that there is zero proof though. Otherwise
you would not need faith, which is the whole basis of the christian belief. You do get that right? If there were proof everywhere, why is faith such
an important part of the teachings?

You're not very good at this. Your beliefs are not congruent with reality. They are based on emotional responses, wishes, and hopes. Not evidence.
There is no evidence.

Are you really unsure of my existance? Why would you write something like that in a serious discussion like this? I really don't see you as someone
who can figure much out. All of these ideas you have are from a very specific, narrow minded view of the world. It is rhetoric that you only get from
the most secluded indoctrinated sects of christianity. Other sects of christians wish you would stop making a fool of yourself, and them by way of
association.

You need to stop generalizing people. This isn't the crusades and Christianity has everything to do with loving one another and being saved by
Jesus. It's about recognizing that everyone is imperfect because we all do bad things (sin). It's about accepting one another and loving each other,
anyway.

Saved from what? What happens if i don't believe in jesus?

So, while what you say makes me very sad for you, I'm not angry.

you don't really feel sad for me. You feel superior to me. Let's get
that out in the open. You believe you have the truth and that you have a personal relationship with a deity. Which makes you feel super special
doesn't it?

I want to know, why are you so angry at God?

i don't believe in any gods. Why are you mad at Odin? Oh, you don't believe in Odin? It's
kinda like that.

Your New Atheism is a cult.

My new atheism? Now you're just mad and it is showing. Why do you hate people who don't believe in your
god? Even though there is zero evidence for these beliefs.

A religious cult, ironically enough

But then, what is a cult? Funny, it has no agreed upon definition because what's defined as a cult
depends on the society.

christianity is literally a death cult.

You might wanna study religion and anthropology before you make erroneous claims again

Hahaaheh....... The irony is palpable.

Otherwise I might just write you another essay

I haven't even had to look anything up, yet.

you have obviosly not looked anything up hun. You should though. It'll do you some good.

because you have a brain and I know you're not an idiot. Plus, I don't want to be mean to you. You're just lost.

you're just smug.
You revel and gloat in the belief that you are special. I can't think of anything more christian than that.

I want to feel compassion for you. And I do. But I don't think you're going to listen to me, so that makes me sad.

maybe i'll believe
some of this proof you've got. Lay it on me. Go balls to the walls and show us all of this evidence.

Don't you see, though? If I didn't care about you--if I didn't see that you are in pain--I wouldn't be saying anything to you. But you're
hurting--that is obvious. And you blame God. You shouldn't. Because God loves you, too. Even if you don't love Him. So, one day you'll see that I'm
right. I hope on that day you make the right choice.

I don't need the threat of hell, nor the promise of heavenly treasure to be a good person. Which clearly makes me more compassionate than you. I can
clearly see the delusion in your words. You repeat the lies that i fight. I am sorry that you have not been taught to see through the lies of people
who would rather keep you subdued and in the dark.

no there is not. There is zero proof that he existed, and he did not say he did anything. He did not write any of the bible. Those stories were
written by others, decades after the events.

Everything in the OP, but since you still remain unconvinced lets pair the Biblical evidence. But I want you to lead me. I'll ask a question and you
go find what scholars say on the topic and come back to me.

Jesus died in April 30-36AD

Paul had his conversion 1-2 years later so now we are at 32-38AD.

Galatians 1 "I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into
Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I
saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother."

So he visits Peter and James three years later that puts us at 35-41AD.

1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, accompanied by Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I went in response to a revelation and set
before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.

So 14 years later leaves us at 49-51AD. The reason for this visit is to check his message with the other apostles and they say you're good buddy! So
19-21 years after the crucifixion we know Paul is teaching the same message as the apostles. A couple years later he goes to Corinth putting us at
51-53AD. Then he writes a letter, 1 Corinthians, to a Church there a few years later schoclars put this anywhere from 53-57AD. This letter contains
oral tradition quoted below:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was
buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he
appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James,
then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Now I go thru his lineage to show you that Paul was there from the beginning. We have his writings, and he met the apostles. Scholars date this bit of
1 Corinthians 15 to 8 years after the death of Christ. Are you really so stubborn that you can't accept this man would have known if Jesus had not
existed? This not only attest to the existence of Jesus and his death but also to the idea that people extremely close to the time frame of his death
thought they saw him again.

no there is not. There is zero proof that he existed, and he did not say he did anything. He did not write any of the bible. Those stories were
written by others, decades after the events.

Everything in the OP, but since you still remain unconvinced lets pair the Biblical evidence. But I want you to lead me. I'll ask a question and you
go find what scholars say on the topic and come back to me.

Jesus died in April 30-36AD

Paul had his conversion 1-2 years later so now we are at 32-38AD.

Galatians 1 "I did not immediately consult with anyone; 17 nor did I go up to Jerusalem to those who were apostles before me, but I went away into
Arabia, and returned again to Damascus. 18 Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to visit Cephas and remained with him fifteen days. 19 But I
saw none of the other apostles except James the Lord's brother."

So he visits Peter and James three years later that puts us at 35-41AD.

1Fourteen years later I went up again to Jerusalem, accompanied by Barnabas. I took Titus along also. 2I went in response to a revelation and set
before them the gospel that I preach among the Gentiles.

So 14 years later leaves us at 49-51AD. The reason for this visit is to check his message with the other apostles and they say you're good buddy! So
19-21 years after the crucifixion we know Paul is teaching the same message as the apostles. A couple years later he goes to Corinth putting us at
51-53AD. Then he writes a letter, 1 Corinthians, to a Church there a few years later schoclars put this anywhere from 53-57AD. This letter contains
oral tradition quoted below:

3 For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received: that Christ died for our sins in accordance with the Scriptures, 4 that he was
buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, then to the twelve. 6 Then he
appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time, most of whom are still alive, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James,
then to all the apostles. 8 Last of all, as to one untimely born, he appeared also to me.

Now I go thru his lineage to show you that Paul was there from the beginning. We have his writings, and he met the apostles. Scholars date this bit of
1 Corinthians 15 to 8 years after the death of Christ. Are you really so stubborn that you can't accept this man would have known if Jesus had not
existed? This not only attest to the existence of Jesus and his death but also to the idea that people extremely close to the time frame of his death
thought they saw him again.

So now you return to the gospel and act as if everything in it is true. I will not use the bible to do anything except to show you why the bible
cannot be used as a valid historical document. Just a little bit of critical thinking will show without a doubt that whoever wrote for paul flat out
lied about plenty of things. Things that we now know are impossible, but paul doesn't realise that we would catch him in so many lies. He builds his
story like a weaver. Possibly inserting some truth but def exaggerating to make the story more grand and powerful. Paul is only claiming that these
events took place because he needs to validate jesus's fulfillment of the jewish prophesies. Nobody would care about what he was saying if he did not
make the claims that jesus healed the sick, raised the dead, died and was ressurected. These are the things paul has to sell to the world to get
enough respect and attention to go on living as the leader of his sect. But unbeknownst to him, there were other people writing and spreading these
same accounts and they don't match what he claims. Which is really pretty laughable because the other 3 books are most commonly seen as copies or
embellishments of the first.

All of the stories are embellished, as was the norm for the times. Read up on the claims of contemporary sects. There were more christs walking around
in those days than you may be aware of. Without these extraordinary claims, nobody would care. Luckily for us, science entered the picture and taught
us that things like walking on water, materialising food out of thin air, and magic in general, is Impossible, and that these stories are not
to be taken seriously. That is the short and skinny of it. If you want to prove otherwise, you will need to do more than quote a fairy tale from 2000
years ago. You will need to prove that it is possible to turn water into wine, walk on water, materialise bread and fish from thin air, etc,etc,
Otherwise they must be considered embellishments. Wouldn't you agree?

You will literally need to harness the power of proper science to provide proof for these claims. Funny how that works. Science deniers tend to
overlook the irony of this.

So now you return to the gospel as if they are true. Paul is only claiming that these events took place because he needs to validate jesus's
fulfillment of the jewish prophesies.

Do you seriously want to espouse science in a historical discussion? We aren't talking physics and chemistry we are talking history. We learn history
from the available archaeology and the ancient documents available to us. That is exactly what I have done in the OP and now I walked you through some
of Paul's writings to show you how close to these events Paul was and the people he met. Now since your so against it. Why don't you give me some
historical evidence for the non existence of the man the Christian religion started around. Surely you have evidence for your belief.

Luckily for us, science entered the picture and taught us that these things are Impossible, and that these stories are not to be taken seriously.

This goes to show how ridiculously close minded you are. No one claims resurrection from the dead and walking on water are common occurrences in
reality...

This isn't a historical discussion any more than the odyssey or the Illead is historical. The claims of magic being used puts this story firmly in the
fan fiction category until it is shown that these events are possible. Why would you ever think that the bible is anything other than allegory.

Why do you think it is reasonable to believe the extraordinary claims made about jesus when you have never witnessed anything like it? And everything
we know about the world fully contradicts these claims? These stories are so old and full of literal impossibilities. Contemporary stories are also
full of embellishments, but you don't take them seriously because that would be rediculous.

who says that God had any input into any religious books, the rules withing religions was needed to keep us from killing, raping and eating each
other. religions originally had a positive effect on our evolution, now it is having the opposite, but we may soon be under a NWO with a new religion
that is more in step with our evolutionary path.

This goes to show how ridiculously close minded you are. No one claims resurrection from the dead and walking on water are common occurrences in
reality...

It s called being logical not close minded.

Listen they told you if you did'nt do exactly as they said you will burn in hell. They said people will mock you and tempt you so that when people did
you would automatically go on the defensive, as this was "prophesized", and refuse to accept any logical alternatives.

The arguement; How can you believe in something you have never seen? Faith; Faith founded in what? The Bible; How do you know the bible is telling the
truth? The bible; How do you know Jesus existed? The Bible; How do you know he was the son of God assuming is their is such a diety? The Bible....

This isn't a historical discussion any more than the odyssey or the Illead is historical

You've taken the kind of documents I have given and related them to epic poems which is silly. It is equally silly to say Homer's works are not
historical. Scholars debate over whether these two writings have any historical nuggets. Scholars do not debate over whether or not Paul's writings
have actual history in them but rather they debate over the time frame which I was very generous when giving you the dates of the skeptical side.

Scholars also acknowledge that the Gospels are of the genre Grecko-Roman Biography. Acts is quite clearly historical narrative. Historical Fiction
did not exists as a genre back then. I would say the vast majority of Scholars accept Josephus, Pliny, and Tacitus references to Christ.

The James Ossuary is pretty good evidence from archaeology. Not to mention we have numerous archaeological find showing the New Testament writers are
discussing real places like The Pool of Siloam. We have the Ossuary of the High Priest that crucified Jesus. We have the Pilate stone. All the
evidence tells us the man at the very least existed.

Why would you ever think that the bible is anything other than allegory.

We know the genre of the writings. Why would you jump straight to allegory over real events with possible embellishments? No scholars in the area we
speak do this why do you? Do you have any evidence from history supporting your position? All I have heard is you reject my evidence. Why don't you
show me someone from the 1st century Jerusalem speaking about all these crazy people claiming a non-existent Jew was physically died and physically
rose again? Oh that's right there isn't anything like that, you are just making wild accusations with literally no reason to do so.

I'm closed minded because i don't believe in things that are impossible?

No one has asked you to believe anything impossible, all I said was he existed, he died, and people in his time frame thought they saw him risen from
the dead. No new testament scholar really disputes these idea so I don't see why they are so hard for you to believe.

Or are you closed minded for accepting claims that are unrepeatable but are written in a single book which flys in the face of what is proven or even
provable?

Do you really think the Bible is one book?

It is far more reasonable to decline extraordinary claims that have no bearing on reality. Is it not?

You think these things are impossible due to a philosophical bias not because they are actually impossible. No one believes these things occurred
naturally.

Why do you think it is reasonable to believe the extraordinary claims made about jesus when you have never witnessed anything like it? And everything
we know about the world fully contradicts these claims?

If I witnessed something like Jesus I wouldn't believe Jesus was God. If people where coming back from the dead all the time I wouldn't consider it a
special event. Nothing about what I know of the world contradicts these events. What I think you meant was everything we know about the world shows
these events couldn't occur naturally and that I would agree with.

I believe it is easier to show God exists than it is for me to show that the universe actually exists. You see our knowledge as humans is extremely
limited. I would say there are only three things any human can know with 100% certainty:

1.) Each person can know of their own existence. Cogit Ergo Sum.

2.) Each person can know that the phenomena of perception actually exists in reality.

3.) Logical Truths

This is my ground zero. If you want to convince me of your world view you'll have to show me that it is more coherent than my own. Before I continue,
would you add or remove anything from this list?

There is nothing logical about materialism/naturalism as a world view.

Listen they told you if you did'nt do exactly as they said you will burn in hell. They said people will mock you and tempt you so that when people did
you would automatically go on the defensive, as this was "prophesized", and refuse to accept any logical alternatives.

Who is they? You seem to think that I didn't come to these conclusions on my own. I didn't grow up in an extremely devout home. In fact my mother was
the only one who went to church most of the time. We might go on Easter. I'll tell you what. Why don't you show me your world view is more coherent
than my own we will both go back to ground zero and we will work our way to the most logical view of the world possible.

How can you believe in something you have never seen? Faith; Faith founded in what? The Bible; How do you know the bible is telling the truth? The
bible; How do you know Jesus existed? The Bible; How do you know he was the son of God assuming is their is such a diety? The Bible....

You make a lot of assumptions about a person solely on the basis that you know they believe in Christ. You know nothing about me or how I came to my
beliefs so please quit pretending that you do.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.